|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.N. Resolution on Weapons of Mass Destruction Sparks Debate By Jim Wurst UNITED NATIONS — During a Security Council debate yesterday, a wide range of countries found much to praise and criticize in a draft resolution before the council that would require states to ensure terrorists and other “nonstate actors” are denied access to weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, April 9). The draft would require states to “adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws” to deny weapons of mass destruction, their components and “means of delivery” (such as missiles and drones) to any “nonstate actors.” The primary goal of the draft, according to its sponsors, is to close loopholes to make it harder for terrorists to obtain such weapons, because existing treaties only deal with governments. The draft originated with the United States and was presented to the council in March on behalf of all five permanent members of the council — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Spain has joined as a co-sponsor. One common complaint was that the draft focuses on nonproliferation at the expense of disarmament. The text contains one reference to disarmament. The goals of arms control treaties “are first and foremost to achieve effective progress toward general and complete disarmament,” said Canadian Ambassador Gilbert Laurin. “The resolution should recognize this important balance and equal emphasis on nonproliferation and disarmament obligations,” he said. Indian Ambassador V.K. Nambiar said, “Exclusive focus on nonproliferation does disservice to the essential principle of the mutually reinforcing linkage between disarmament and nonproliferation.” Two other criticisms of the draft dealt with the increasing power that some nations felt the resolution would confer on the council. Specifically, by creating binding obligations, the council would override existing treaties and by invoking Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter — the provision justifying enforcement against noncompliant states — the council would have too much coercive power, according to the critics. South African Ambassador Dumisani Kumalo said the draft would “establish a mechanism in the Security Council that is isolated” from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions. Nambiar said he was concerned “over the increasing tendency of the council in recent years to assume new and wider powers of legislation on behalf of the international community, and binding on all states.” While acting under Chapter 7, “the resolution ought to steer clear of any coercive or punitive approach,” said Nambiar. Deputy British Ambassador Adam Thomson sought to address these concerns. Progress on disarmament is “important,” he said, but added that “it has always been clear” that the draft should be about nonstate actors and proliferation. “The resolution does not in any way undermine the importance of disarmament, it is just that disarmament is not its primary focus,” he said. Citing Chapter 7 does not mean it is “about coercion or enforcement,” said Thomson, it “simply reflects the fact that what we are dealing with is a clear threat to international peace and security.” He added, “It would send an odd message if the Security Council were to act on any other basis.” “The resolution does not negate the importance of existing multilateral arrangements,” Thompson added. “It is clear that in the face of this urgent threat, only the Security Council can act with the necessary speed and authority.” Ambassador Don MacKay of New Zealand said this is only an urgent matter now because “there has not been sufficient will to see the existing multilateral disarmament and nonproliferation regimes significantly strengthened, with the result that the council is now being asked to step forward to fill a gap, with the required urgency.” The European Union, Australia, Israel, Japan and Singapore were generally supportive of the draft as it stands. “Sweden has consistently advocated that a strong and central role be given to the Security Council in addressing these issues,” said Ambassador Pierre Schori of Sweden, an EU member country. “In our view it is both timely and proper” that the council deal with WMD proliferation. While this session was called to give noncouncil members an opportunity to comment on the draft, it was also the first opportunity for council members to make their cases publicly. Among the council members, there were enough concerns to make clear that the resolution as it stands could not be approved by consensus. Algeria, Brazil, Germany and Pakistan all had substantial questions about the text, while Angola, Benin and Romania largely favored the draft. Algerian Ambassador Abdullah Baali said, “It is appropriate and necessary to have this draft resolution reaffirm the need to work for disarmament.” On the other hand, Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias said, “If there are too many paragraphs on disarmament in the draft, we run the risk of diluting the objective of the resolution.” Approving this resolution would mean the council is “acting in an exceptional manner since, clearly, the Charter does not confer to it a mandate to legislate on behalf of the international community,” said Baali. Arias called the initiative “part of the global struggle against terrorism,” therefore “this council is competent to act.” Acting under Chapter 7 will “send a strong political message,” he added. More than 50 countries addressed the session.
| ||||||||||
Back to top
